Private schools have the right to government funding

[The Conez Imperium]

An argument I often see on the internet is that private schools don't deserve a drop of money from the government. I sympathise with their statement however I find it inherently unfair that they ignore the right of the taxpayers.

Students in private/independent schools deserve government funding simply because they're parents pay taxes. We say that every child is entitled to an education. Then why aren't taxpayers entitled to their tax dollars being spent on their child's education - whether private or public. In saying, there of course needs to be a difference in contribution between private and public school funding. Most likely, students who go to private schools do not need as much funding as those who attend government schools.

[Wallenburg]

No, they do not. /thread

[The Conez Imperium]

No, they do not. /thread

And do you have a reason?

[Galloism]

No, they do not. /thread

And do you have a reason?

Police provide security in my town.

I want private security to protect me instead of local police.

Therefore, private security firms have a right to government funding.

[AiliailiA]

We say that every child is entitled to an education. Then why aren't taxpayers entitled to their tax dollars being spent on their child's education ...

Because those two things may conflict with each other, and if they do the state should put the interests of children ahead of the interests (tax paying) of their parents.

Also, let's clear up what you mean by "private school". Is that a school which charges fees, or is it any school which is not a public school*?

It's an important distinction because not all private schools in the wider definition charge fees, so you can't assume that the parents pay tax at or above the rate of public school parents.

*British: Comprehensive school

[Anywhere Else But Here]

It's quite simple. If parents want their taxes to go towards their child's education, they can send the little bugger to a state school, as they have the right to.

[Costa Fierro]

The difference between private schools and public schools is like the difference between public and private healthcare. You pay for what is supposed to be a better service. Private schools also function more like a business in the sense that you, the parent, pay fees for their services, which is the education of your child or children. Public education, like public healthcare, are free-at-the-point-of-entry government services that are funded through general taxation for greater public access.

[AiliailiA]

The difference between private schools and public schools is like the difference between public and private healthcare. *snip*

Yeah, if we allow a for-profit industry to cherry pick the least sick citizens, the pool remaining to be served by the government is sicker and costs more per capita to serve.

Much the same with allowing for-profit schools to cherry pick the most talented students with the most supportive home environments. The public schools then have a student body which is harder to educate and costs more per capita to educate.

[AiliailiA]

Come on OP! Don't tell me you've gone, less than half an hour after starting the thread.

OP

Also, let's clear up what you mean by "private school". Is that a school which charges fees, or is it any school which is not a public school*?

*British: Comprehensive school

[Wallenburg]

No, they do not. /thread

And do you have a reason?

Under no other circumstances do private businesses have a right to public funding. I see no reason to make an exception for private schools, especially since it would probably be unconstitutional as well.

[Philjia]

For profit institutions shouldn't receive taxpayer money unless the taxpayer is a shareholder.

[Frank Zipper]

Do parents who homeschool get government funding?

[The Conez Imperium]

Come on OP! Don't tell me you've gone, less than half an hour after starting the thread.

OP

Also, let's clear up what you mean by "private school". Is that a school which charges fees, or is it any school which is not a public school*?

*British: Comprehensive school

I'm not gone, I'm just thinking of a counter-argument

My definition of private schools follows Australian independent schools as I am most familiar with them. This might confuse those who are familiar with the British education system.

To answer you question, private schools in Australia charge fees for students to attend. In addition to this fee, they are supplemented by the government through various schemes. Primarily, the government pays each school $X for each Y students but also through softer initiatives like family tax benefits or infastructure/education grants.

There are different definitions of public school due to who ultimately controls them. For example, in Sydney, the Anglican church controls Anglican private schools so in technicality, schools are non-profit. The archbishop is I suppose the ultimate ruler in a sense like the Queen is the monarch of Australia. I think the definition should be taken from a government funding perspective rather than a ownership one to make things clearer.

[Neutraligon]

No private schools should not have the right to government funding. If parents decide to send their kids to private schools they should be held liable for anything and everything. While private schools should be somewhat regulated by the government, a parent makes the choice to not use the available public education. That is their choice and I should not have to pay for that choice. They want tax payer money to educate their kid? Send the kid to public schools.

[The Conez Imperium]

And do you have a reason?

Police provide security in my town.

I want private security to protect me instead of local police.

Therefore, private security firms have a right to government funding.

I like this argument, Costa Fierro brings a similar one with private VS public healthcare. It's a good one I'm trying to refute.

On principle I can't debate this argument. However in the reality of Australia, say there are 500 000 families who send their children to private schools. A whole ecosystem so to speak now operates under "private schools". Are we now to destroy that ecosystem?

Whilst I admire this argument, the difficulty in me accepting it, is that it infers that there is no history to the people's wishes. This argument i find is to be made in the "beginning" rather than during the process.

[Neutraligon]

Police provide security in my town.

I want private security to protect me instead of local police.

Therefore, private security firms have a right to government funding.

I like this argument, Costa Fierro brings a similar one with private VS public healthcare. It's a good one I'm trying to refute.

On principle I can't debate this argument. However in the reality of Australia, say there are 500 000 families who send their children to private schools. A whole ecosystem so to speak now operates under "private schools". Are we now to destroy that ecosystem?

Whilst I admire this argument, the difficulty in me accepting it, is that it infers that there is no history to the people's wishes. This argument i find is to be made in the "beginning" rather than during the process.

There can be ecosystems based on many things. I fail to see why this one should be protected. Are the public schools unable to take in these students?

[Galloism]

Police provide security in my town.

I want private security to protect me instead of local police.

Therefore, private security firms have a right to government funding.

I like this argument, Costa Fierro brings a similar one with private VS public healthcare. It's a good one I'm trying to refute.

On principle I can't debate this argument. However in the reality of Australia, say there are 500 000 families who send their children to private schools. A whole ecosystem so to speak now operates under "private schools". Are we now to destroy that ecosystem?

No. We haven't banned private schools in the US, despite them (mostly) not receiving government funding. They still get students. They still operate. The 'ecosystem' lives without government funding.

Just like private security.

Whilst I admire this argument, the difficulty in me accepting it, is that it infers that there is no history to the people's wishes. This argument i find is to be made in the "beginning" rather than during the process.

I recognize those were all English words, but I'm not sure what you were trying to convey.

[The Conez Imperium]

I like this argument, Costa Fierro brings a similar one with private VS public healthcare. It's a good one I'm trying to refute.

On principle I can't debate this argument. However in the reality of Australia, say there are 500 000 families who send their children to private schools. A whole ecosystem so to speak now operates under "private schools". Are we now to destroy that ecosystem?

Whilst I admire this argument, the difficulty in me accepting it, is that it infers that there is no history to the people's wishes. This argument i find is to be made in the "beginning" rather than during the process.

There can be ecosystems based on many things. I fail to see why this one should be protected. Are the public schools unable to take in these students?

From my perspective, I'm trying to debate this topic on a more theoretical/philosophical level than a practical level.

In reality, private schooling will continue to be government funded in the foreseeable future because of politics and self-interest. A man called Mark Latham, former leader of Labor party came up with a "private school rich list" because some private schools were receiving too much funding. He didn't survive that long (and because of other factors).

[Neutraligon]

There can be ecosystems based on many things. I fail to see why this one should be protected. Are the public schools unable to take in these students?

From my perspective, I'm trying to debate this topic on a more theoretical/philosophical level than a practical level.

In reality, private schooling will continue to be government funded in the foreseeable future because of politics and self-interest. A man called Mark Latham, former leader of Labor party came up with a "private school rich list" because some private schools were receiving too much funding. He didn't survive that long (and because of other factors).

You made the argument that there is an ecosystem of sorts that is based around government funding (making me wonder how these are still private schools). I am asking why I should care about this system. I am asking why this ecosystem should deserve the protections you are giving it. I am asking if public schools are unable to take on the burden should this ecosystem fail. Why should I as a tax payer have to pay for something I may not be able to access due to private schools not accepting my kid?

[United States of Natan]

An argument I often see on the internet is that private schools don't deserve a drop of money from the government. I sympathise with their statement however I find it inherently unfair that they ignore the right of the taxpayers.

Students in private/independent schools deserve government funding simply because they're parents pay taxes. We say that every child is entitled to an education. Then why aren't taxpayers entitled to their tax dollars being spent on their child's education - whether private or public. In saying, there of course needs to be a difference in contribution between private and public school funding. Most likely, students who go to private schools do not need as much funding as those who attend government schools.

No. They don't need government funding. If they cannot educate their students with the school's own money, then they shouldn't be a school. Why should our tax dollars go to educating kids in a school with it's own money already that our kids can't afford, when they could be going toward educating our kids in the public school system? If your private school cannot afford to support itself or educate students, it shouldn't be a school. If they cannot educate the students more effectively, then there's no reason not to send the kids to public school.

These parents are paying taxes knowing full well they might not be going to their kids, if their kids are in private school. And that's the purpose of tax dollars; to benefit others, not yourself.

[Irona]

There can be ecosystems based on many things. I fail to see why this one should be protected. Are the public schools unable to take in these students?

From my perspective, I'm trying to debate this topic on a more theoretical/philosophical level than a practical level.

In reality, private schooling will continue to be government funded in the foreseeable future because of politics and self-interest. A man called Mark Latham, former leader of Labor party came up with a "private school rich list" because some private schools were receiving too much funding. He didn't survive that long (and because of other factors).

As a parent you make a choice about whether to send your child to a private or state school. If your concerned that your taxes aren't funding your child's education then you should involve that factor when weighing up the pro's and con's of sending your child to private or state school.

In practical terms it's inefficient for tax money to be spend on private education because it's funding education for people who can afford to pay for it. It's just a tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of the poor's education.

[AiliailiA]

Maybe you could have a 100% public system (banning private and religious schools, also home schooling) but also have school choice. It would be expensive: to provide just two alternatives in every area without requiring students to travel further would mean doubling the number of school campuses (though they'd also be smaller), and I don't think two choices is enough.

[Cedoria]

There can be ecosystems based on many things. I fail to see why this one should be protected. Are the public schools unable to take in these students?

From my perspective, I'm trying to debate this topic on a more theoretical/philosophical level than a practical level.

In reality, private schooling will continue to be government funded in the foreseeable future because of politics and self-interest. A man called Mark Latham, former leader of Labor party came up with a "private school rich list" because some private schools were receiving too much funding. He didn't survive that long (and because of other factors).

But he wasn't thrown out because of that.

He was thrown out because he was an all-around general lunatic.

[Belle Ilse en Terre]

For profit institutions shouldn't receive taxpayer money unless the taxpayer is a shareholder.

I would amend that to: "unless all tax payers are shareholders or directly benefitted". Private entities that receive public money may only use that public money for public good. This guards against corruption.

Maybe you could have a 100% public system (banning private and religious schools, also home schooling) but also have school choice. It would be expensive: to provide just two alternatives in every area without requiring students to travel further would mean doubling the number of school campuses (though they'd also be smaller), and I don't think two choices is enough.

I think your second satement, a propos dchooling choice, is a fine idea, as it would hopefully force each school to perform better. Banning all religious and private schools could not work because it is restrictive, people ought to be able to start a school if they wish, and a violation of religious freedom. Catholic children are required to to go to a Catholic school and get a Catholic education. Forbidding them of this would violate their freedom to practice their religion.

[AiliailiA]

From my perspective, I'm trying to debate this topic on a more theoretical/philosophical level than a practical level.

In reality, private schooling will continue to be government funded in the foreseeable future because of politics and self-interest. A man called Mark Latham, former leader of Labor party came up with a "private school rich list" because some private schools were receiving too much funding. He didn't survive that long (and because of other factors).

As a parent you make a choice about whether to send your child to a private or state school.

Are you overlooking that private schools charge fees which many parents cannot afford?

Or are you talking about a scenario in which the government pays all private school fees, no matter how high they are?

If your concerned that your taxes aren't funding your child's education then you should involve that factor when weighing up the pro's and con's of sending your child to private or state school.

In practical terms it's inefficient for tax money to be spend on private education because it's funding education for people who can afford to pay for it. It's just a tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of the poor's education.

As devil's advocate I'd say that those parents already paid the most tax.

Actually we should drop the whole "payed tax therefore has rights" line of thought. If you apply that consistently, parents who don't pay tax don't have rights. Which is crap.